A recent Web content (it may be called as “contents” or “Web content” hereinafter) has advanced in diversification by an evolution of specifications of HTML (HyperText Markup Language) and CSS (Cascading Style Sheets) for creating Web content, and a progress of Web technology.
In many cases, an order of developing the Web content is that the contents are created with a text-base such as the HTML and the CSS, those contents are actually displayed in a screen by a browser (browsing software, hereinafter, it is also called “web browser”.), and the display status of the contents is checked.
Various technologies which support developer's works has been proposed so that such contents can be developed efficiently.
As an example of the technology, Patent document 1 (Japanese Patent Application Laid-Open No. 2002-183034) discloses a technology which makes the works easy by supporting operations to perform, by using GUI (Graphical User Interface), a series of the works such as contents creation that have been done by texts and display check
Patent document 2 (Japanese Patent Application Laid-Open No. 2005-122504) discloses a technology which supports a checking work of differences between a designing of contents and an actual indication.
Patent document 3 (Japanese Patent Application Laid-Open No. 2002-527822) discloses a technology which supports a test of a Web site whose indication are dynamically changing by a dialogue using a form. More specifically, in technology described in patent document 3, a test configuration file covering the input patterns to the form is created first, and HTTP is transmitted to a Web site instead of a browser. After that, the error included in the HTML will be reported by analyzing the HTML received from the Web site.
However, in development of Web content, it also has to consider that its drawing method and script execution specification are different for each browser which refers to the Web content.
In various browsers, each of the browser is embedded an original drawing engine and script execution engine. That is, the various browsers have the specification peculiar to the browser. Even if a certain browser is expressed to be based on the specification of the CSS, there is a case where indications and operations as described in the specification may not be realized. That is, depending on the kind of the browsers for indications, inconvenience indication and operation (a developer does not intend to) may occur, even if there are no error in HTML.
For example, when an image or the like is shown to the respective browsers between the web browsers whose kinds are different, a subtle difference may occur on a layout. That is, in such a case, it may take place that a drawing position of specific elements (units such as each text and image of the Web content) shifts by several pixels in a browser A and a browser B.
As a technological example which settles the problem, Patent document 4 (Japanese Patent Application Laid-Open No. 2010-39815) discloses technology which automatically corrects an HTML source for an element whose display position and size is shifted, by comparing a display result, by using displayed images, of a browser A and a browser B.
The problem caused by the particular specification of the browser also lies in the point that a specific browser has a restriction in the specification in addition to the indication gap mentioned above. That is, there is a case that the browser doesn't draw an image correctly since the next drawing request has arrived before the drawing processing under the execution has completed depending on the input timing of the drawing processing for the browser. Specifically, when drawing it according to a plurality of drawing requests whose issue timing is different, the drawing inconvenience (inappropriate drawing) takes place such as the phenomenon that the specific element existing in the Web content is not indicated on the browser and the phenomenon that the drawing protrudes out of a designated area on the browser due to that the drawing speed is different.
The drawing inconvenience mentioned above occurs by any one of the drawing request which has been caught up or the next drawing request (which has caught).
The browser correctly indicates all elements if re-drawing is performed since an internal drawing processing of the browser correctly executes the drawing request which has been caught up and the drawing request has caught when a phenomenon occurs that such wrong description takes place.
Accordingly, when a drawing inconvenience problem occurs by such drawing timing, the re-drawing for a display area of the browser should be compulsorily performed after the drawing completion of each drawing object. As a countermeasure to such browser, a Web content developer has added the processing to perform re-drawing in all locations after the drawing processing of the Web content has completed.